cowiz wrote:Azathoth wrote:Gerald McGrew wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:O.k., so this was mentioned in the Civil War Within Skepticism thread, but maybe it deserves its own discussion.
Now, the folks at Freethought Blogs, the "Blag Hag" (whose blog is phonetic play on the words "Fag Hag" - a woman who gets off on hanging around gay men)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/08/atheism/ , Greta Christina
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... r-atheism/ and others have started this movement called Atheism Plus. They say they are "atheists, plus [insert political belief X here]."
As such, they claim not to be dividing, but merely "improving" the atheist movement.
But they already sorta have a name. It's "Freethoughtblogs" and/or "Skepchick". Perhaps those aren't all-encompassing, but generally when I hear those names, I know the sort of atheist they're referring to.
But they want their political agenda to be inextricably linked to the word atheism. They can get fucked. This is why there is such a violent push back against their shit. Twatter is fucking hilarious at the moment.
Not much push back on FtB though
Well, this is what happens when any "push back" appears at Freedom From Thought Blogs....
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/ ... r-atheism/
Horace says:
@Proxer -
I do understand that the elevator incident was not completely described by the mere statement “asked for coffee in an elevator after a conferences.” That was a shorthand reference to the incident itself, and I am not going to recount all the events and rehash the debate. Suffice to say, the incident as described in toto by Ms. Watson, taking everything she said about it as true, was not, in my view, harassment at all, and I believe that her reaction and the reaction of her supporters to it was over-the-top. I think offering it as evidence of an overarching harassment problem in the “community” which is what she and others did, was misplaced.
Then people who hold my view of it were immediately labeled as misogynistic, enablers, and mansplainers. We were told that we don’t have a right to evaluate the facts and opine whether we believe X, Y and Z were sexual harassment, because once a woman says X, Y or Z is sexual harassment, then that’s what it is. We’re not her, so we can’t say what’s offensive to her or not.
I agree, of course, that we can’t say what is offensive TO HER (or him, of course), but we most certainly can, reasonably, rationally and justifiably, have an opinion as to whether a given set of facts reasonably ought to be considered, objectively, as sexual harassment or misogyny.
The whole year-long ordeal went off the rails more and more. I mean, one woman announced on a podcast that “all we’re asking for” are policies to prevent people from selling fake jewelry and that people not intentionally offend other people. Well, neither of those things are reasonable demands. The jewelry that that woman was selling does not give her an exclusive right, and parody jewelry or similar jewelry has just as much of a right to be sold as her jewelry. And, since when does “intentionally offending” someone mean it is or ought to be forbidden? Skeptics the world over claim the right to “intentionally offend” people — particularly religious people.
I’ll remind people of the poignant quote by Stephen Fry, “It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that”, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. “I’m offended by that.” Well, so fucking what?” The same goes for t-shirt’s that say “I am not a Skepchick,” and such. The same goes for fake jewelry. The same goes for dissent of any kind. And, the same goes for offensive comments, in my view.
As for being out of Atheist Plus because one does not use reason to address issues, I would point out that telling people to fuck off if they ask for evidence, looking to drum opponents “out of the movement” and make them into “pariahs,” and such, is not using reason. It’s not rational. Improperly using the term “gaslighting” in response to people disagreeing as to the facts of a given issue, is likewise not rational. There are a host of other examples I could give you. But, frankly, it’s not really worth the time.
Again, I am glad that the movement has decided to call itself something that can be easily separated from mere atheism. I, for one, want nothing to do with Atheism Plus, will oppose it anytime it arises in conversation, and will look forward to its descent into obscurity like the unfortunately, and arrogantly, named “Brights.”
Good luck with your movement, and best wishes.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says:
August 22, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Horace knows that he’s lying, Proxer. He knows that we know he’s lying. He just wanted to shout “bitches ain’t shit!” once again. And, apparently, that’s supposed to make us want to be in his group of bigots who don’t believe in bigfoot.
Horace says:
August 22, 2012 at 1:22 pm
@Illuminati –
I rest my case. Your post is exactly why many people want nothing to do with your movement.
Don’t worry, you don’t have to run me out of the movement.
Greta Christina says:
August 22, 2012 at 2:06 pm
…many of us don’t think that asking a woman for coffee on an elevator at 4am in Ireland after a conference is worth a year of hand-wringing…
Horace @ #106: And this is Exhibit A in why Atheism Plus is necessary.
Elevatorgate was not “a year of hand-wringing” over asking a woman for coffee on an elevator at 4am in Ireland. It was about the fact that, when Rebecca Watson responded to this incident by saying, “Guys, don’t do that,” she was subjected to a torrent of vile, hateful, grotesque, overtly sexist and misogynistic abuse, including graphic threats of violence, rape, and death. As has every female public figure who spoke out on her behalf about the incident. If, after a year of watching this abuse unfold, you still can dismiss it as “a year of hand-wringing,” then you are clearly part of the problem.
As I said above: I am willing to do Social Justice 101 with people who are genuinely well-meaning and simply aren’t familiar with these concepts, and who aren’t familiar with the history of what led to Atheism Plus. But I am not willing to do Social Justice 101 with people who are sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming, “I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!” — and who are being vile and hostile to the people talking to them. [sarcasm]You are not welcome here. Get out.[/sarcasm]
Horace says:
August 22, 2012 at 5:21 pm
@Greta Christina — fair enough – I am out of here, and will not return. I believe, and many of us outside of FtB and Skepchick, et al. are of the mind, that it is you, FtB, Skepchick and the like that are “the problem.” This isn’t about people not knowing Sexism 101, Feminism 101, etc., as you so condescendingly put it. It’s about disagreeing with you that incident X was sexism or harassment in the first place.
Take the Surly Amy “incident” at TAM. Nothing she complained of was sexual harassment or even just generic harassment. Nothing. She claimed she was harassed and had to leave because people wore and/or sold mock jewelry, and a woman wore a t-shirt stating she was not a skepchick, etc. She claimed that conventions should have policies against these behaviors. I heard her say it out loud on a podcast.
The reason I oppose the policies you folks are looking for is not because I am in favor of harassment. It’s because I’m not in favor of policies which are so broad that they would include the conduct Surly Amy characterized as harassment.
This kind of thing is NOT Sexism 101 or Feminism 101. It’s some bizarre kind of complaining that certain people are engaged in, suggesting that parody, criticism, and mockery is something that can be prohibited and regulated. That anything “intentionally offensive” needs to be or ought to be banned.
And, this idea that you folks are teaching us something about sexism and harassment is ludicrous to begin with. Look at the claims made: All women (query: people?) have a right to set their own boundaries. It’s not for anyone else to judge whether it would be reasonable for someone to be offended or uncomfortable. If she (query: he?) feels offended or uncomfortable, then she is, and then you need to stop.
No. I disagree. Unapologetically. That is not now and never has been the test for what is acceptable. It is not up to the listener to have carte blanche as to what will and will not be allowed to be said. If that were the rule, then we would have religious people claiming offense to what bothers them, and claiming the right to set their own “personal boundaries.” All people would then claim their own Sacred Cow to be sacrosanct.
What is the result? Chilling of speech, expression, humor, etc. What if some group or another at a skeptic conference decides to do a debaptism, but a Christian happens to be at the skeptic conference and is seriously offended by that? What if a practicing Jew attends a conference and is offended by jokes about god hating ham?
The lessons that you folks teach are that if someone says something offensive to you, then it’s harassment. That is not correct. That is not harassment.
Recounting nastygrams received by email, Greta, is just whining. At the very same Irish conference that started this whole hullabaloo, Ms. Watson sat next to Richard Dawkins and laughed – laughed – outloud at the, in her words, “hilarious” hate email that he received (some of which included threats of death and such). In fact, she found them so funny, she stated that she had put one of them as a ringtone on her phone. She then went from there to engage in a discussion of how unacceptable and “sexist” similar hate mail she received was. Naturally, she thinks that the mail she gets is worse.
Now, I’m already overstaying my welcome here, because Greta told me so, in no uncertain terms, that I am not to be here. She told me to get out. I will honor that request, and this will be my last post here.
@Proxer, I won’t be able to respond to your post or continue the discussion, because, I’m about done here.
I’ll leave you with this. After you drive away all but those who properly genuflect and prostrate themselves before you, don’t be surprised if there are very few people around to talk to. If your goal is to create a movement where you parrot back and forth to each other the same views, and then pat each other on the back for being so smart, you’re off to a great start.
Enjoy.
I’m out.
Greta Christina says:
August 22, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Recounting nastygrams received by email, Greta, is just whining.
Re Horace @ #125: Anyone who thinks speaking out about threats of violence, rape, and death is “whining” is not welcome in my blog.
I am going to help Horace stick the flounce. He has been banned.
So, that is all it takes to get banned at "Free Thought Blogs."
Fuck you, Greta Christina. Fuck you. I'm kicking you out of the movement. You're banned.
